Bruce: Given Bryant's appeal to autopoiesis, a comparative look at Bryant and Thompson might be worthwhile.
Me: Bryant includes Brown's unmarked space as one example of the real excess beyond our access. In the beginning of Thompson's video he mentions Buddhist emptiness, but only in the context of relational dependent arising.
Bruce: Wilber uses Brown too, but in a more Idealist fashion, of course.
Me: It doesn't appear he [Thompson] includes this excess beyond relations. And yet Bryant has lately turned into a correlationist.
Bruce: With his fold model?
Me: Even before that.
Bruce: Maybe a weak correlationist, reading it as co-relation?
Me: Seems that way.
Bruce: That's in line with Buddhist emptiness (in one of its iterations)
Me: That's Thompson's pitch.
Bruce: Yes, so there should be better rangtong representation in SR/OOO!
Me: I do recall though one Bryant post criticizing Morton's Buddhist take as being one form of correlationism.
Me: And yet it is not empty or undifferentiated (10).
Bruce: Yes, that's similar to what I touched on in my translineage paper, drawing on Gendlin's latest work on body-and-environment, body-as-environment.
Me: It might be similar to Thompson's being-in-the-world of contextual relations, but he uses far different language.
Bruce: Yes. I think a Thompson-Bryant interface would be a worthwhile exploration. Maybe you and I should do it.
Bruce: And to expand OOO work well beyond where it usually goes.
Bruce: LOL! Yep. Which calls for folding in Faber or Keller too.
Bruce: Love it.
Bruce: Radiance also sparks thoughts of excess.